Guy gets stabbed, nearby police didn't do s**t!

[AoTFan]

Okay, this is an old (about three years) article, so forgive me if it's already been discussed here, but this is literally the first time I heard/read about this.

It's from Cracked, the true story of a guy who was attacked by a real life slasher.  The guy (Joe) was on a subway in New York when a crazy crack addict stepped on.  What Joe didn't realize was this guy had already killed FOUR people and injured several others.  At first, the guy tried to get into the engineering section of the subway, but the door was locked and the people inside refused to let him in.  When that failed, the guy turned around, approached Joe, whipped out an eight inch knife and starting stabbing him.  Well, Joe fought the guy and, taking several hits, managed to pin him to the ground and knock the knife out of his hand.

Now, here's the crazy part, only AFTER he had this maniac on the ground did the TWO ARMED cops who were HIDING behind the locked door in the engineer's compartment decide to come out and do their f**king job!  They bravely swooped in to  handcuff the maniac who was already disarmed and being held on the ground.  

At this point the train had been stopped because other officers were on the tracks and Joe sat down, still bleeding profusely from his wounds.  NONE of the officers going in and out bothered to render first aid (I guess NYPD cops aren't trained in that either).  In fact, it was a random civilian who put his hand over the biggest wound to staunch the blood flow.  Later, someone gave the guy napkins.  

To add insult to injury, the police had a big press conference and credited the whole incident of the guy's capture to the "brave" cops.  

And get this, when Joe tried to sue the city, he found out that according to 2005 Supreme Court ruling that the police have no constitutional duty to protect people from harm.  So, yeah, that whole "to protect and serve" thing must be just lip service.  (And people wonder why so many people want to arm themselves and fight tooth and nail against "gun control" laws.)

So, I just.. I dunno.  I have no words.  

I highly recommend reading the article here http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1484-cops-wont-help-you-7-things-i-saw-as-real-slasher-victim.html

And here's an article about the "no obligation to protect" ruling http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

[indianasmith]

That is a sad story of neglect, and a ridiculous court ruling.
But, it's worth noting, a few bad cops do bad things and it's nationwide news.
A thousand cops a day faithfully enforce the law and protect citizens - and no one ever notices.

[javakoala]

Not to be the political jerk, but Cracked has become more and more aggressively liberal in its agenda. While I'm sure the story is true, I can't help but wonder what factors Cracked may have left out to promote the injustice here.

That being said, you better hope that if a loon stabs you in the torso that they are holding the blade mostly horizontal. If they do, then you can block a lot of the bleeding simply by curling forward which will push the wounds closed. Mostly.

[AoTFan]

Not to be the political jerk, but Cracked has become more and more aggressively liberal in its agenda. While I'm sure the story is true, I can't help but wonder what factors Cracked may have left out to promote the injustice here.

Well, that I agree with, and a lot of the newer stuff (especially the podcasts) have just been pretty much been SJW talking points with little attempt at any actual comedy, but I've done some research on my own and this story seems pretty straight forward.

And, in fairness, I bet if they had came out guns drawn and said, "Hey, drop the knife!" and opened fire if the dude refused to comply, there'd probably be a***oles in the media criticizing that move. (Or maybe not, the guy was white, so shooting him probably wouldn't garner much attention.)

[Rev. Powell]

You guys might note that the 5-4 "no constitutional duty to protect people from harm" ruling was written by the "right wing" Justice Scalia, while the dissents were from the "left wing" Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and the left-center Souter.

I haven't read the actual ruling or analysis so I have no opinion on it, but I know it was controversial (obviously, since it was 5-4).

[javakoala]

You guys might note that the 5-4 "no constitutional duty to protect people from harm" ruling was written by the "right wing" Justice Scalia, while the dissents were from the "left wing" Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and the left-center Souter.

I haven't read the actual ruling or analysis so I have no opinion on it, but I know it was controversial (obviously, since it was 5-4).

I don't doubt that. The fact Cracked was calling this situation injustice when it stems from a "right wing" source backs up my comments that Cracked is pointedly liberal.

The ruling itself is insane, kinda like joining the military and then screaming, "But I shouldn't have to fight or learn tactics or discipline and so on." Doesn't matter what political side supports it. You're a cop, then you should protect and serve the public.

Maybe my sense of values is out of whack these days.

[Rev. Powell]

You guys might note that the 5-4 "no constitutional duty to protect people from harm" ruling was written by the "right wing" Justice Scalia, while the dissents were from the "left wing" Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and the left-center Souter.

I haven't read the actual ruling or analysis so I have no opinion on it, but I know it was controversial (obviously, since it was 5-4).

I don't doubt that. The fact Cracked was calling this situation injustice when it stems from a "right wing" source backs up my comments that Cracked is pointedly liberal.

The ruling itself is insane, kinda like joining the military and then screaming, "But I shouldn't have to fight or learn tactics or discipline and so on." Doesn't matter what political side supports it. You're a cop, then you should protect and serve the public.

Maybe my sense of values is out of whack these days.

Again, I haven't read the opinion, or investigated how that opinion might have been applied in this case. I don't really have the time to form an informed opinion. But...

First, I don't know how the plaintiffs dragged the Constitution into it (if they did; you can't always trust the press to report legal matters correctly). Seems like ordinary negligence analysis would have been the standard.

Second, Scalia's point might be, if a policeman refuses to sacrifice his life by throwing himself in front of a bullet intended for a civilian, you can't sue the state over dereliction of duty. That doesn't sound crazy to me.

Third, the fact that the court ruled against the plaintiffs doesn't mean the court condones the underlying behavior. Usually it just means the plaintiffs chose the wrong legal principle or theory.

The police in this case probably should have intervened (although we haven't heard their side of the story). I don't think that means civilians should always be allowed to sue the state when the police fail to protect them. Sounds like a bad precedent to me.

[stine.greta]

This is the first that I have also heard about this story. It really is disappointing, I feel sad for the victim.